Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To access our archive, please log in or register now and read two articles from our archive every month for free. For unlimited access to our archive, as well as to the unrivaled analysis of PS On Point, subscribe now.

As much as Ben-Ami may have some good ideas here I can't agree with his statement, "Iran-backed Shia militias would unleash a killing spree against Sunni communities in Mosul after ISIS withdrew." Iran is just now getting back to business, much needed business, returning as a nation among nations. I doubt very seriously they would become what Ben-Ami suggests here.

But when Ben-Ami says, "But Trump should not wait for a crisis to impose an agenda on him. Instead, he should recognize that now, more than at any time since 1948, America’s estranged Sunni allies have a strong incentive to make peace with Israel and collaborate with it on regional security, and that such an arrangement could be legitimate only with the creation of a Palestinian state," it become a bit laughable. The 2002 Arab League peace offer (which was even later re-offered to Israel) was and continues to be completely ignored by Israel.

Trump is unfit.
Thank God we had a Peace Noble Price as US president the past 8 years.
Which brought us an unprecedented period of Love & Peace in the Middle East... no , wait!
There are a lot of people out there that cannot separate appearance from substance.
It seems that the Clinton-débâcle wake up call was not enough.

Shlomo Ben-Ami's wish list for Trump's foreign policies in the Middle East may unlikely be fulfilled, not least because they are vague and contradictory. Should they be carried out, the world's most combustible region could explode. Even if "his approach does become clear," it may not be "what the United States – or the world – needs." The only thing he knows about this volatile region is the IS, and he claimed to know “more about ISIS than the generals do.”
As a businessman he lacks the knowledge, political acumen and military experience to handle the conflicts in Syria and Iraq. He sees engagements abroad as a liability rather than an asset for soft power and America's international standing. As a commander-in-chief of the world's most powerful military, he views it as a security company that provides protection against payment. As he had vowed to change his stances towards allies abroad, world leaders fear that this unpredictable and unreliable figure might dismantle decades-old treaties and commitments.
Syria is the venue of a multi-layered proxy war fought between Assad and the opposition - rebels and Islamists - backed by regional and global powers. That he had sung Putin's praises doesn't sit well with GOP-hardliners, who are hostile to Russia. His denial of allegations that Russian hackers meddled in the presidential election had confirmed the fear that Putin would make a puppet of Trump. He also made positive comments about Assad, saying, the opposition were "terrorists" and the Butcher of Damascus were the lesser of two evils. He risks to anger America's Sunni allies, that have vowed to oust Assad.
Trump has an affinity for strongmen, and is less concerned with human rights abuses or the intricacies of the many warring parties and interests in the Middle East. He might reach out to autocrats like Egypt’s Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi and Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Pledging repeatedly to intensify the military campaign against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, he said eliminating the group would be his main priority. He had in mind a joint military effort with Putin and Assad to defeat ISIS, which would come at a political cost - recognition of Russia's annexation of Crimea.
The Obama administration has walked a tightrope - arming the Syrian rebels, the Kurds and other allies in the region, without putting boots on the ground. Trump's approach will have an impact on America's complex relationship with its regional allies. The Syrian rebels and the Kurds would emerge as losers, should he align himself with Putin. Trump will also face the same dilemma as Obama: a right balance between Turkey and its bitter rival, the Syrian Kurds, who have been America's reliable ground force fighting IS, and hoped to win Washington's support for statehood. Unlike Obama he will sacrifice the Kurds for Turkey.

Apart from scraping the nuclear deal that the international community had signed with Iran, Trump said he could make the Palestinians more desperate by siding with Israel’s hard-line right wing. He is much more sympathetic to Benjamin Netanyahu than to the Palestinians, whose dream of gaining independence after 50 years of Israeli occupation may shatter, leading likely to a "third intifada." He has surrounded himself with hawkish advisers close to Israel’s ultra-right, backed by "fanatic" settlers. Among them are Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, former U.S. ambassador to the UN - John Bolton, and conservative billionaire Sheldon Adelson, a close friend of Netanyahu’s.
The author urges Trump "not /to/ wait for a crisis to impose an agenda on him," but to "seize the initiative" to act. He ought to "recognize that now, more than at any time since 1948, America’s estranged Sunni allies have a strong incentive to make peace with Israel and collaborate with it on regional security, and that such an arrangement could be legitimate only with the creation of a Palestinian state." This new approach "would also support US reconciliation with the Arab peoples, thereby serving America’s national security interests." For the sake of peace, let's hope so. But we must brace for disappointment. That Trump contemplates appointing his son-in-law to mediate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict shows his priorties - family ahead of national interests, nepotism ahead of meritocracy.

What Trump lacks in understanding of world affairs he makes up for in vanity -- and in that he bears a remarkable similarity to Kaiser Wihelm II. The Kaiser too fancied himself a great general, a savior of the West -- even a great friend of Russia's Czar until he started butchering Russians in great numbers in 1914.

Perhaps we can learn something from that. After three years of disasters all around, Kaiser Bill was led quietly off the stage so that the real generals could take over -- although too late to make any difference for the German people of the day. And his ultimate legacy didn't become clear until 1939.

By the numbers Mr. Ben-Ami:
1) "Trump has said a lot about foreign affairs, without really saying anything at all. His muddled statements offer little insight into what kind of foreign policy..." Like Machiavelli advised in "The Prince", be vigilant always of what counselors a prince surrounds himself with and you will know what policies will be forthcoming. Even though the cabinet hasn't been formed yet the names bandied around suggest a strong hard line foreign policy.
2) "Trump is a businessman, not a statesman. He thinks in terms of immediate profits and losses – a worldview that is exemplified ...that US allies need to contribute more to security alliances". The West statesmen that have been guiding us as of late have done a terrible job in Crimea, Ukraine, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Palestine, Yemen, Libya, China, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba. At this stage the liberal world order might be better served with a business minded executive rather than the myriad of recycled political figures that we've had at the helm.
As for NATO countries why not contribute more economy to their defense? Security expenses should not be placed under a "welfare" mechanism where one nation shoulders the majority of the bills.
3) "One region that Trump will not be able to ignore is the Middle East". No contemporary American president has disregarded the Middle East. To do so would be close to suicidal because of energy concerns.
4) "... Defeating ISIS as the administration’s first foreign-policy priority". It is an ambitious start but the best way to defeat not only DAESH but also Hezbollah and their Iranian sponsors is to exacerbate the schism between the Sunni and Shia fundamentalist factions. Building competent states in the region is a chimera. Far too many tribal concerns overriding the collective and made worse by the tinkering of borders by the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement.
5) "Trump must cut America’s dependence on Russia in the Syria war..." Why not become "allies" like in World War II to defeat the Islamic fundamentalist wave? We all know the end justifies the means. Defeating terrorism is a must and the West alone cannot vanquish it. An alliance might be the best way forward regardless of the fate of Ukraine (strange all Western talking heads never mention Crimea anymore).
6) "...Not least because a lack of US security guarantees and structures could spur nuclear proliferation". The nuclear family is expanding as of late and will continue to do so at alarming speed whether we like it or not. The minute Iran builds its first bomb, and make no mistake about it for it will, Saudi Arabia will follow suit. The genie has been left out of the bottle.
7) "...Promise to suspend the Iran nuclear deal is particularly worrying. Iran has prepared Hezbollah..." The deal is a sham and everyone who grasps the essence of the Tehran regime knows it. The Iranians have already violated it and will persist in their quest to produce one. It is in their religious DNA as they seek to usher the coming of the apocalyptic Mahdi. Hear what they preach my dear
Ben-Ami. As for Hezbollah it is busy fighting in Syria that at the end of the day is a good thing for that way they don't focus their murderous energies on Israel (we must be thankful to DAESH for this lull).
8) "Given this, America’s estranged allies in the Middle East... would be well advised to drop their opposition to the Iran deal..." Neville Chamberlain, John Kerry and Barack Obama are similar in style points: to them appeasing a monster that threatens daily to destroy our way of life is sensible. For the rest who oppose such lunacy they should persevere in their opposition. It should be best just to scrap it altogether rather than carry on the charade.
9) "To salvage the bilateral relationship (with Turkey), Trump would have to sacrifice America’s partnership with the Kurds..." Poor Kurds...they have been sold out time and time again and now you are implying that they be thrown under the bus and for what? Turkey has lost its secular appeal. Turkish President Erdoğan only wants to remain in power and is beholden to the voters who cast their ballots. His constituency is not pro-Western and even more so after the failed coup. And let’s face it the EU will not allow the capital of the former Ottoman Empire into their union so the only bargaining chip is gone from the geopolitical poker table.
10) "Add to that opposition from Iraq, Syria, and Iran, and it is clear that Kurdish independence is not in the cards". If the above three countries oppose it the West should support it.
11) " Specifically, a settlement-building spree might end up triggering a particularly fierce third Palestinian intifada". The Palestinian have a perpetual intifada. Their leadership definitely lacks the appetite for peace, and if they do, they have terribly failed at acquiring it.

The "Trump problem" has not been solved one bit by the magic of his being elected President of the United States. His outstanding strength, to this moment, is his talent to grab power working on the fears of his constituency. A strategy that works better in a chaotic environment.

We can only prey hoping that in his presidential role he finds other strengths, distinct from fear mongering and divisiveness.

What if Trump recognizes Jerusalem as capital of Israel and stops making an issue of settlements? Might that not steal the Democrat's clothes and improve GOP prospects in upcoming elections?
The truth is a Palestinian intifada at this time will have a negative impact because however bad the Israelis may be, what is happening elsewhere is worse. Saudi Arabia is involved in a shooting war in Yemen- that gives NATO a threat point it didn't previously have. Oil prices appear unlikely to recover. The Iran nuclear deal should be scrapped because it is meaningless. Let a Shia counterweight establish itself in the Levant such that Iran and Turkey and Russia find a modus vivendi. Europe itself, after Merkel's fall, will draw back from Ukraine as it realizes that a European Defense Force will take years to materialize and that, in any case, the mood in the West has soured with respect to its Eastern and Southern marchlands.
The author thinks that Sunnis in the region will welcome a Palestinian State. Why would they do so? It will be destabilizing for Jordan and Lebanon and Egypt not to mention a disaster for Palestinians as their politicians become proxies in an internecine conflict between wealthy Emirates. Why should Trump 'seize the initiative' and do something nobody wants?
The Middle East is complicated. American meddling has achieved nothing there. Let it alone. Eastern Europe is complicated. Let it alone. Western Europe is busy repudiating some fictional 'liberal world order' which caused its deeply parochial leaders to strut for a fretful hour on the world stage doing horrendous damage. Let them shut up and deal with their own sclerotic problems. They said they wanted to be an American style 'melting pot' but they were fooling themselves. Now they face an electoral backlash.
Drone strikes, on the other hand, are cool. Even Obama, a law professor with a Nobel Peace Prize, couldn't get enough of them.

Before one starts criticizing Donald Trump's foreign polices, before his team is assembled and before his actual policies are articulated, it might be worth it to first focus on Obama's failures in foreign policy all over the world. In the ME he tried to "lead from behind", a totally absurd idea. He has had two of the worst SOS in US history, Clinton and Kerry, while running US policy from the White House with Valerie Jarrett and Michelle Obama as his closest policy advisors. The US cannot solve all the problems in the ME. The Arabs need to take the lead in solving Arab problems. The US can advise, help organize and counsel countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, Morocco and Israel but Arab problems need Arab solutions and ownership. Syria is a civil war - it is no place for the US. We should stay out and let the Russians bog down in it for the duration. IS is a long-term problem for the West. The US can lead a unified effort to blunt its growth and its dangers but Europe has to grow up and take a big responsibility in this effort. NATO needs a review - what is its mission today? Who is the enemy? What kind of threats are there to NATO? All legitimate questions ignored by Obama for 8 years. A Palestinian state? When the Palestinians want peace with Israel, they get their state. Until then, as Aba Eban said, "The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity".

America has no business being in Ukraine in the first place. Moreover inciting coups abroad like they did during the maidan is against the basic values of the US. In fact, it's exactly what the US was constantly demanding the Soviet Union to stop doing back in the day.

Ukraine has never been in EU/American "sphere of influence" as you put it. It never will be. If the US gets tangled in any other conflict right now, the Ukraine problem will be unilaterally solved by Russia immediately. As such it shall suffice to say that Ukraine is also currently not in American sphere, rather it is in a gray-about-to-be-russian-again sphere.

A wise man would end the Ukraine conflict to gain assistance in the chaotic Middle East. Obama was not a wise man. I seriously doubt Trump is either. However John McCain is possibly the worst. Not a single brain cell in that creature - just pockets lined with big donor dollars.